Today’s exchange of views in the EP Environment Committee with Bjørn Hansen, Executive Director of ECHA, is well worth watching if you want get a better idea of the chemical policy agenda for the next 12 months.
You can watch the exchange below.
Auto-generated transcript
I welcome mr. Hanson the executive
director of ECHA
it’s the yearly and visit but there was
a visit two weeks or three weeks ago but
it’s a good habit to have so you have
ten minutes to present your work your
priorities and also then we will open
the floor through the various members
concert okay thank you very much mr.
chairman honorable members all in the
audience indeed it’s a great pleasure to
be back again a few weeks ago together
with the other agencies that report to
this committee we presented ourselves
and this time it’s me alone in our
annual dialogue as it’s called can
present the results of the last year’s
work of eka and a bit of a looking
forward from that in our last discussion
a year ago the main take-home message
that I got was that this committee of
course in a different constellation had
significant concerns about the progress
that was being made in what’s in reach
called compliance check this was being
written up in the press quite
significantly triggered by some studies
that have been carried out that showed
that quite substantial amount of data
collected under reach was not compliant
and I gave the promise that I would
significantly increase the amount of
work that we do in the chemicals agency
on compliance check I did not want to
give you then a numeric target but I
hope that I’ll be able to your
satisfaction to report on that today the
other thing which has happened involving
this committee over the last year is on
the authorization of reach where there
was yet another resolution objecting to
a commission decision granting an
authorization
and through that resolution there was
quite some comments on the work that we
were doing in ek and this resolution was
from our perspective and concerning the
topics raised a continuation of a number
of other resolutions that this house has
produced and in fully in line with our
court judgment that came out in the
spring criticizing very much the same
factors and I hope I can also report now
on what we’ve done with that but let me
go back to strategy start with that our
management board adopted in the end of
2018 so very shortly after our last
dialogue a strategic plan for the years
2019 to 2023 the strategic plan contains
three strategic priorities and if I
summarize them unduly then the first
strategic priority is identify
substances of concern and take action
quickly the second strategic plan is to
support industry in getting information
that we have in a cap but also
registrants have in their companies down
the supply chain so that the actual
worker using the substance gets the
information he or she needs in order to
protect himself and to the consumer for
the protection of the consumer and the
environment and the third strategic
priority is that we as an agency ensure
that our work that we do is better
integrated with other pieces of
legislation that concern chemicals that
we are not implementing other agencies
and the international agenda now what
are we achieved if I go through the
three strategic priorities and I’ll
speak mainly to strategic priority one
that’s looking back there are some
things in terms of the supply chain and
getting information down in strategic
priority two that we’ve achieved that
I’d like to mention and then finally
strategic priority three of Congress
some of the achievements we’ve had but
also in particular look forward because
I see very much in the guidelines of
president Ursula Thunder lion and in
particular in the context of the Green
Deal and the zero pollution agenda a
number of possibilities for us in the
agency to support the work being done
there
starting with compliance the target that
we had last year for 2018 was 2,200
compliance checks and I’m happy to
report that we are well on target to
reach 300 this year or over 300 so we’ve
increased a number of compliance checks
by over 50% as I speak today we have
finished 283 compliance checks 200 or
compliance checks on 283 substances
covering 2318 registrations so this is
approximately a 50% increase over last
year and I do believe that that
represents a significant increase as I
had promised this committee last year on
authorization we’ve gone through quite
substantial changes in the way we draft
the opinions and the information that we
give to the Commission in order to be
aligned with the resolutions that you
have come up with but also in with the
court judgment this I won’t go into any
details unless you ask questions so I’ll
leave it with saying that we’ve aligned
ourselves to ensure that we respect the
views that you came forward with and the
court has come forward with what I would
like to mention is that we’ve been doing
this under at the same time as we have a
significant amount of applications for
authorization we have a hundred and
twenty applications for authorization
that are currently going through this
our part of the system this compares to
22 in the whole of the year 2018 when I
was here last time so there’s a fifty
five hundred percent five times increase
in the number of applications for
authorization and we have therefore had
to both accelerate increase the number
of staff working on it and change
substantially
the way we work on restrictions we’ve
continued the work which at a very high
intensity there are quite a number of
restrictions proposals which are
currently going through the committee’s
are being prepared by the agency if I
mention a few names numbers then we’re
currently preparing for Innoko after
being requested by the Commission we
have nine restrictions which are
undergoing discussion in the various
Commission committees and we have five
restrictions proposals that we have sent
to the Commission and is undergoing
decision-making there and just to
mention a few of them there’s one on
tattoo inks which is an area that has
not up until now been regulated at EU
level which chemicals are allowed and
not allowed in tattoo inks we have one
on micro plastics which is currently
ongoing and there is also another one
ongoing on rubber infill in sports
fields for example in particular this is
the shredded tire tires coming from from
end-of-life tires just to mention a few
of the topics that we’re covering there
but as mentioned this is at a very high
intensity and based on that work or
knowing that that work was coming what
we have done within the agency is to
substantially reorganize ourselves in
order to accommodate for these
challenges both the ones in compliance
check the ones in restrictions the ones
in authorisation but also with the aim
of trying of being better placed to take
on new tasks so our organization as such
as an as a agency but also the way we
work is organized along three axes one
is along competence centres another is
that the whole agency is set up to start
looking at groups of substances as a as
a way of routinely looking at substances
so never look at a substance in
isolation but always
a group and then finally with this
organization along groups of substances
and competences we believe that we can
much easier take on new tasks and what
this means with easier is that they can
get started quicker with lesser than
before of the new tasks that we have
taken on we just to mention a few we’ve
now become operational with the poison
centers so this is a database and
information collection of from industry
where we disseminate information back to
the Member States so that emergency
telephone of authorities can give advice
in case of emergency and how in for
example households in the use of
chemicals we have are also well on
schedule in developing the waste
database which we discussed slightly
last time as being a critical database
to get up and running but we are
progressing well and we are now in place
to systematically take on work coming
from DG employment on occupational
exposure limit values if I go to the
strategic priority 2 and simply mention
the work we’re doing on supply chain
then we have worked considerably on
establishing efficiencies to get
information that from the thousands of
registrants containing significant
amount of chemical information on
chemicals much better and much more
efficient down to companies that are
actually using the chemicals so on the
reach side we’ve done made considerable
progress we are now talking with the
Member States and with the Commission
because one of the big obstacles that’s
preventing the use of this information
by workers on the work floor is the
interface with the OSH the occupational
safety and health legislation and these
obstacles need to be overcome in order
for reach to reap in the full benefit or
rather for the off
the worker protection to repin the full
benefit of all the work and information
that’s being generated under reach
finally I can say in strategic priority
three so this is looking out towards the
other legislation but also
internationally some of the things a
major milestone that we have made is a
cooperation with the European Food
Safety Agency that we are supporting the
F son in implementing the new food law
in particular through the support of
development of IT systems to gather data
and publish data on the Internet as
required by the food law and this is
seen as a very tangible cooperation
between the two agencies so we will be
buildings identical systems used in
Epsom and in a camp for these purposes
and thereby create both synergies but
also consistency and work if I look a
little bit forward in and look at what
is coming the next couple of years then
clearly foreca we have our our plate
full of tasks as I mentioned our
compliance check activity have
significantly increased and we intend to
keep it at that high level for the next
seven years in order to be able to say
in 2027 that we have looked at all
substances on the European market and
determined whether risk management is
needed or not we see that within the
Green Deal at least what we read into it
is an opportunity to further streamline
a lot of the chemicals legislation along
with the recommendations which are
embedded in the Commission’s fitness
check of all chemicals legislation
except breach and thereby enabled more
efficiencies and better consistency
between more pieces of chemicals
legislation thereby reducing the
administrative burden on companies but
at the same time also increasing the
level of protection finally I’ve one
note on resources up front we’re very
we’re concerned with any cuts that the
agency might get and this is basically
based on the presumption that the demand
on us will mean will will stay as it is
today and as I’m sure I’ll hear from you
today that you want us to do a lot of
compliance work you want us to do a lot
of authorization work you want us to do
a lot of restrictions work and you want
us to contribute to whatever can be
unfolding politically under the Green
Deal and the zero pollution agenda and
for that I would my expectation is that
we would need a steady resourcing eniac
um and at the moment with the
Commission’s proposal this is not
exactly fulfilled but if you want to
discuss any details on that we can do
that afterwards so with that I’d like to
finish my introduction and thank you
very much for your attention thank you
I’m going to give the floor to start the
debate with the env contact person for
your agency Martine of it thank you very
much and welcome back I would be
wandering in the overpass we touched on
the on the Green Deal how are you and if
at all are you involved from the from
the Commission side in this I think this
is something which is gonna be
definitely very important I hope the
Commission’s are doing that but also I
would like to hear from you more about
how do you perceive the challenges ahead
in terms of helping to drive the
innovation on on safer chemicals but
also and one particular topic which
relates to consumer safety and that’s
the importation of products from China
and the booming online market the
Alibaba switch this and all the others
how do you think that what’s your take
on how where occur can help to tackle
these challenges thank you
so you want to answer that one first the
contact person that would be the
priviledge and then there are love
questions thank you very much thank you
Martin
I’ll start with the bigger picture Green
Deal I mean our involvement of is of
course one of telling the Commission
what we think we could do should they
decide to do something so it’s a little
bit of a hypothetical discussion point
but our basic fundamental line is I
would say two things one is concerning
circular economy and the other one is
concerning the integration better
integration of existing legislation if I
start with the latter this is what I
briefly mentioned before but there are
still around 40 pieces of legislation
which EU legislation which govern
chemicals from one angle or another and
which do things slightly different and
at different times on the same chemicals
that we look at in in eka and I believe
that by analyzing these other pieces of
legislation or rather taking the
consequences of the analysis the
Commission has already done we can gain
considerably in efficiency and
consistency and implementing other
pieces of legislation if I give you some
examples that there’s the Water
Framework Directive which sets water
quality standards concerning chemicals
there is a restriction of hazardous
substances in in wastes and there is
what you already discussed in the agenda
point before this for example in
drinking water and drinking water
materials legislation there’s a
discussion in the trial log ongoing that
we should take on further tasks there
and basically these are all pieces of
legislation where if we take on tasks in
supporting them we can ensure
consistency and synergies and I think in
terms of the citizens synergies means it
can be cheaper and consistency means
that they don’t get confused
with different messages chemical is a
chemical know where it no matter how
it’s used and our assessment
would ensure that consistency on the
circular economy parts for me looking at
the world and and the communications of
the Commission’s on circular economy
I see the circular economy as having in
particular and a focus on looking at
materials and then going through
circularity and a material is nothing
else than a mixture of chemicals so in
ensuring the safety of those chemicals
used in a circular economy we see
ourselves being able to play a central
role but also in promoting innovation
into chemicals that are circular and can
be used better in in recycling in terms
of challenges of innovation that’s one
of them but in general the substitution
challenge of substituting say more
hazardous substances by less in
particular substances are very high
concern I think looking at what reach
and classification and labeling have
done together but also a number of the
other legislations we work on bio sites
and persistent organic pollutants they
do push substitution away from very
hazardous substance very risky
substances into less risky and there for
example in the chromium authorization
process there have been quite some
innovation in new processes using rather
than chromium 6 using chromium 3 which
is considerably less toxic and thereby
considerably less risky so I see that
the implementation on the ground that we
do definitely pushes innovation but I
also see of course one can always do
more if the resources are there but
we’re on a very good track in pushing
innovation on the safety side if we get
to circular economy that innovation
needs to be pushed in addition on the
circularity side and finally import of
products it’s mainly in the hands of the
lawmakers and you the part that we do in
eka is that we coordinate enforcement
officers and in that work that we do
there we definitely want to strengthen
our collaboration with men
state enforcement to ensure better that
the borders are protected from illegal
products coming in for example as you
mentioned from China thank you sir we
have to catch the eye session don’t
hesitate you put yourself on the list
we start with better leader yeah Frank
afford it snap Thank You German Thank
You mr. Hanson you mentioned a number of
points also very specific points that I
had to go into and in general I’d like
to ask you a general question on that
when it comes to chromium that was a
topic in Parliament the month before
last we had a very close decision I was
one of those who said to the Commission
that chromium six is essential I’d like
to know how you assess the alternatives
because on the one hand we have SMEs and
in the motion that we voted on in
October and in the public hearing
nobody’s said that as an alternative it
was claimed that there are alternatives
since then and we’ve discussed also with
your predecessor as to how SMEs can meet
these requirements and it seems to be a
contradiction there we have a hearing
and nobody says there’s an alternative
nonetheless we require the SMEs deep to
use an alternative which nobody knows
secondly on tires as you said there is a
certain split between the circular
economy and the Denise need to reduce
toxic substances as far as I know in
many applications with all used tires
people are exposed to hazardous
chemicals but we can only take these
hazardous substances out of the
production process in after a number of
years and they exist in tires if there’s
no risk for people we have to find
compromises the third point I welcome
the fact that together with DG
employment you’re working very closely
with them most substances are a risk in
the production process I mean that we
must have very strict rules but it
doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a
problem for the end-user and so they’re
the solution might be to work on the
rules for employees and if necessary to
tighten them thank you you take your
turn in for Cindy thank you Cher and
Thank You mr. Hanson for being here with
us again and for your introduction we
have already discussed the study by the
German Federal Institute for risk
assessment and the German environmental
agency that revealed that a third of the
high production volume chemicals made or
imported into e Europe since 2010 break
EU laws designed to protect public and
environment from harmful exposure just
third 31% were declared as legally
compliant with the rest needing more
investigation the rich regulation oblige
companies to report to a Kea whether
they their substances are causing cancer
neurotoxic mutagenic bio a cumulative or
harmful to children or human fertility
no Authority ization shall be guaranteed
to substances with her sardos proper
piece where the more data needs to be
generated to conclude the potential risk
and I think you agree to that and I will
lie
to know if you agree that it’s a problem
that Europe is really having this
problem at all rising substances all
although the required information is not
there or missing and moreover I also
want to ask if you are preparing an
action plan to improve compliance when
when we receive this action plan and can
you already now give us some few ideas
of what action is foreseen and then I
want to ask also if I know that only 20%
of all applications are actually tested
in Europe why is that and then to lost
not so small questions but I take my
opportunity here I would also like to
ask you on the grouping approach I
understand you will be working with this
as of next year and that you will
compare the new substances in low
volumes with similar ones and can you
explain this approach a bit more in
detail please
and finally the microplastics
iike has proposed as you of course know
to ban added microplastics in products
such as toothpaste cosmetics and so on
and when will we when can we see the
overview and action on this and what can
we expect thank you for the greens
schita Paris hello mr. Hanlon nice to
see you again and thanks for coming
again to us and giving us insights into
your work some of the questions have
already been raised by my colleagues I
would also be interested what percentage
of reach dossiers is actually being
checked today it should be increased to
20% as we all know but I would like to
know where we stand now and also when do
you think that those days will be full
fully compliant so that we won’t have
these high rates which miss miss
Courtland
has already mentioned
the second question is around
authorizations I think we have seen in
the last mandate as I was told but also
in this been made programmatic
authorizations such as chromium six
because I think if an applicant doesn’t
doesn’t give a complete dossier with all
required information then authorization
should not be granted and this should
not be tolerated and also I’ve seen that
rag and ciock recommend authorizations
due to economic advantages but I think
this should be left to the Commission
before because rack and CX should only
do risk assessment and also I would like
to know how a proper assessment of
potential substitutes is done because up
to now I haven’t seen any and I think
instead of granting granting
authorizations by having a more proper
assessment on possible substitutes we
could really foster innovation in that
case and the third question is I would
be very happy to hear your opinion on
the titanium dioxide question which will
we will be debating on within this
sitting thank you very much thank you
for the way as a company yes Thank You
chair and thank you dr. Hansen for your
presentation and I have a question about
cosmetics regulation the EU cosmetics
regulation adopted in 2013 which bans
animal testing for cosmetic products and
for their ingredients was a
groundbreaking success and however the
European chemicals agency and the
Commission are still insisting to test
cosmetic ingredients on animals in the
framework of the rich chemicals
regulation and on the rich animal
testing is required for chemicals used
in cosmetics when there is a possibility
of workforce
exposure during manufacturing processes
but also for substances used
not only in cosmetics tests on animals
are permitted regardless of any worker
exposure risk this practice undermines
the cosmetics regulation and implies
that the reach regulation overrules the
animal testing ban and all this without
informing the consumers properly do you
agree mr. Hansen and that your practices
under the rich regulation undermined the
EU Cosmetics regulation and the ban on
animal testing for cosmetics and how are
you going to solve this major problem
which is also misleading consumers thank
you thank you so as to one’s Novak from
the EPP voila thank you very much thank
you for the floor mr. Hansen thank you
for your presentation
it was a very good presentation but I’ve
got a few questions are the results of
your work taken into account when the EU
is negotiating trade deals with third
countries
if so who supervises this I’ve asked
this question many times in different
fora but I haven’t received a
satisfactory answer yet how can we be
sure that products imported from third
countries don’t include harmful
chemicals so who is doing the
supervision and are your analyses taken
into account in trade agreements thank
you
thank you
last question from the ppm in America
Thank You chair
it is very special but I would like to
have some kind of further information on
the file of the tanning dioxide that
we’ll discuss
later so I would like to ask you first
of all what is the force in timing for
the revision of the waist guidance by DG
MV concerning the titanium dioxide
classification because I think that to
must ensure that the guidance will be in
place by the time that the
classification enters into force to
avoid confusion and disruption and
concerning your companies I would like
to ask if first in the in the in the
draft fashion and the direct act was a
reference for materials placed in the
market but now this kind of reference
has been removed do you have any idea
why has been that taking place and
secondly I would like to say that
concerning your jorah your report on
titanium dioxide are you ready to put
some kind of clarification as to annex
three note 10 for the example putting
the word dry in front of the time of
powder in the percentage of masterís in
the powder because that is a certain
mentioning in this text there are
processing and recycling projects were
titanium dioxide in reality is present
and this is not available so I think
that there will be a kind of confusion
in this regard thank you very much
thank you a lot of concrete questions so
we expect concrete answers thank you
very much mr. chairman
I’ll do my best I’ll start with
compliance check authorization
compliance check first then go to
authorization and then some of the
issues on restrictions and then go to
the more broad issues regarding trade
employment Cosmetics and titanium
dioxide on compliance check yes we’ve
agreed with the Commission that we would
increase the amount of Toshi’s that we
compliance check from 5 percent to 2
you present the Commission has made a
proposal to the relevant committee who
has also adopted this so we have an
increase of the percentage in reach from
5% to to 20% this is the concerns the
number of douches we expect that if you
look at the number of substances that
this covers and I’ll go into the mass if
you want to but it’s rather complicated
but this corresponds to somewhere
between 30 and 40 percent of all
substances that are registered that we
thereby will be looking at through
compliance check for all the other
substances we will look at them from the
perspective of do we think that they can
be risk managed immediately meaning
there’s no need to generate further data
but one can go immediately to
classification and labeling as an
example restrictions or authorization or
other types of Union instruments like
occupational exposure limit values or we
actually think that there is so much
risk management already in place that
there is no need to further work on that
substance and then there’s a third type
of group or a third type of conclusion
that we will be getting to and that is
that we see the substance we do not
believe the substance is of any concern
but the data might not be compliant I
can again go into the technical details
of that types of substances but there
are some substances which are generally
understood as not being and and our
experts agree are not toxic but the
registrant has not done a great job at
demonstrating this those types of
substances we’re putting at lower
priority but we’ll of course discuss
with the registrants to make sure that
they that they get their registered or
improve their registration DOJ’s but our
goal is by 2027 to have looked at all
registered substances and put them
either through compliance check put them
to risk management or conclude that no
risk management is needed because what
is already in force is very strong or
this third category that they may be
compliant it may not be compliant but
there’s really not need to generate the
data this would be generates excessive
cost use of animals and there’s really
no need to do it through testing but
more about improving the Doshi as such
that we will do for all substances as I
said by 2027 on authorization now maybe
I should take here the grouping at the
same time what we intend to do or
actually we’re already doing it but we
will do it systematically as of January
1st next year is that all substances
that we consider within any of our
so-called processes that so that’s
within evaluation restrictions
authorization or other looking at other
pieces of legislation we will always
look at all substances which are
chemically similar whether they are
registered at lower volumes or even in
some cases not even registered at all in
order to see if one can come with a more
robust conclusion which concerns not
only that substance but all substances
in a group like I said we will be doing
that mainstream from next year and we
are the first agency in the world that
has committed to doing so and also as
I’m said in the beginning completely
reorganized ourselves to be able to do
with that if I move to authorization
then I think there is an issue of
substitutes and let me just say
generically that authorization is a new
system it still is relatively you knew
if you compare it with the previous
offer ization systems it does take some
time for it to be completely running
smoothly but also that all actors out
there in Europe are aware that there is
an authorization authorization system
that they can
tribute to what we’re doing in terms of
alternatives is that we have clarified
significantly what our work is and what
the Commission’s work is both in terms
of alternatives also in terms of the
socio-economic analysis and in
particular the conclusions whether an
authorization should be granted or not
but all of that is very clearly in the
realm of the Commission and we give the
information now in our newest opinions
so to enable the Commission to take that
decision evidently the opinions or the
decisions the Commission is taking today
are based on old opinions from us
and therefore are not yet in this new
format but once the the wave of opinions
that now are being produced trickled
through to the Commission my
expectations would be that that would be
at some point in the second half of next
year then you will see this also in the
opinions coming out of the Commission
but we have made a very clear dividing
line between what is our responsibility
and what of the Commission
we promote very much on our website and
talking to companies that they bring
bring alternatives we talk with the
individual applicants what it means for
them to do an analysis of alternatives
and look for alternatives and in general
we think that this year is improving and
like I said on the chromium case this
substitution with chromium 3 and some
other very innovative technologies is
something which came up during the
authorization process and of course we
want this here to happen before we
actually are are doing the opinion
zinnia but this is an issue of spreading
the good news around Europe and having
these alternative manufacturers or
alternative users of chemicals come
forward earlier we’re still working on
this there’s still a lot of room for
improvement but we do see the
improvements on chromium 6 in particular
I do think that it’s also worth noting
that all the opinions that we have come
up with in those the companies who have
requested an authorization have
committed to keeping a limit value of 2
ppm at the workplace and this is a
factor 5 below the occupational exposure
limit value so the reach authorization
is providing even more protection for
workers then did the the occupational
exposure limit value as such so the two
are complementary and working very well
together to protect workers I let me
move to restrictions there there’s the
issue of tires and and indeed they’re
there there is in the short term always
a discussion about like legacy chemicals
that are banned in primary materials and
then them coming back as secondary mitt
coming back into the economy as
secondary materials and I think that
this is something that we in the agency
can assess but obviously it’s something
for for Policy to decide whether they
want to have a lower level of protection
coming or rather they would accept
higher concentrations of a legacy
chemical coming from secondary materials
than they would in the primary materials
creating of course a distortion in the
economy but on the other hand also
promoting recycling micro plastics there
we indeed are I need to be very
articulate in the terminology I think
it’s the Secretariat in IKEA has
produced a restrictions proposal indeed
phasing out the use of micro plastics in
all intended uses of it in Europe and
that proposal is being discussed in a
cos risk assessment committee and we
expect its opinions to be to be finished
in the risk assessment committee and in
the social economic analysis committee
next year and it that it then can move
to the Commission for its implement
decision to implement or not or modify
based on our recommendation of the
scientific and technical evidence so we
will finish within the 15 months
deadline that reached places on us can I
ask my colleagues so that I don’t say
something just to check it and then come
back when is it we are expecting the
opinion from the rack and the siak hope
it’s being communicated to me June next
year thank you very much dear colleagues
so June we will finish our work and hand
over the opinions of the two committees
to the age to the Commission for it to
take its decisions part of that analysis
has a has of course also been looking at
alternatives to the use of micro
plastics so just back to the original
discussion there and therefore also
looking at how long does it take to
implement alternatives and thereby
having this also as an instrument to
promote the use of finding alternatives
that are simply safer on if I then move
to the bigger bigger areas i perfectly
agree on the comments with employment
and occupational safety health there is
a need to further integrate and further
utilize the strengths of the two areas
to get synergies and thereby end up
protecting the worker better but also at
a lower cost for the employer and i
believe that there are significant
opportunities there the occupational
exposure limit value work that we are
doing in in supporting scientifically
it’s just the beginning but there are
significant opportunities to improve but
that requires a proactive discussion and
compromise from both sides in order to
ensure that this happens and here
compromise I don’t mean politically it’s
very much an issue of habits and
technical
technical issues cosmetics no I do not
agree that reach undermines the
cosmetics regulation and its ban and the
ban on on animals I believe that the way
we are implementing it complements and
respects the the division that is there
between the ban for animal testing and
cosmetics and reach in the reach world
including classification and labeling in
pops and the other pieces of legislation
we we implement we do not see the
possibility to ensure safety from
chemicals in Europe to the consumer in
other applications than cosmetics or to
workers without animal testing
generically and therefore we see this
there there is a there is a friction
between the political desire desire to
not have any testing on animals for any
substance that is used in cosmetics
versus what in reach as an example is
required to ensure safety of workers
using these chemicals now that is a more
of a perception because as I said there
is a very fine line but well defined
between exactly when the test in reach
would be required and you’ve mentioned
it compared to under cosmetics on the
trade deal I I mean in general iike the
European chemicals agency has no and has
no entity outside of Europe when we sit
at conferences of the parties or
anywhere else we always sit behind the
EU flag very often supporting
technically the Commission so in terms
of trade deals no we’re not involved in
trade deals directly we do get questions
through our partner services on
occasions but this is not our our realm
in terms of imports how can we be sure
that they are
compliant with legislation well I think
the reach review but also chemicals
industry and industry at large
very often says we need more enforcement
at the borders to make it to catch the
illegal imports out we play a very small
role there but we we do play a role in
coordinating and discussion with
enforcement authorities and Member
States and as I said before we will work
on on increasing that the efforts and
work but our our work alone will only be
a marginal improvement compared to the
overall need for increasing enforcement
at the borders if I move to titanium
dioxide yeah first apologies I will not
be able to answer these very technical
issues I didn’t come prepared having to
have read our opinion from the risk
assessment committee in Grand detail so
this issue about a technical note in an
annex there I can’t answer here but I
would be happy to do this in writing and
after consulting the colleagues but in
general you this committee and of course
Parliament has its role to play which is
outlined in the treaty in terms of
decision making by the Commission my
role is to be aware of what comes out of
it and I’m particularly aware if there
is a resolution which seems to
contradict or criticise the scientific
opinion that we have in India and in
this what I’ve managed to read here I
see one part of the story but I don’t
see the other part of the story and if I
can just say in general without going
into any grand detail what what I see is
that account believes that titanium
dioxide is a carcinogen by inhalation
scientifically category 2 so it’s
correct that it’s not category 1a 1b but
we do believe it’s a course
by inhalation category to all the
science that we have demonstrates this
and we’ve applied the science that we
have and I’ll tell you where it comes
from to the criteria and the globally
harmonized system and we have put that
in front of the risk assessment
Committee which is the committee that
you among others have decided should
should have a scientific view on this
the data we looked at is the data that
industry consider it met the
requirements for reach and if we take
the data that they believe meet the
requirements for reach then the risk
assessment committee believes that it
meets the criteria for being a
carcinogen by inhalation category two
now if industry doesn’t like that data
then we of course have a problem in
reach but they submitted the data years
ago and said that this is the data that
fulfills their information requirements
so in effect that part of the story on
the data we believe it is a carcinogen
by inhalation the link with OE L we we
do have a risk management competence in
Inc eka so I’ll be be speaking exactly
from that risk management competence
that of course setting up an OE l can
very well be a good risk management tool
but to see it as a alternative to
classification is is a priori a little
bit difficult for me to see and I’ll
explain why very shortly the reason why
we classify substances is to allow
workers on the work floor when they’re
picking up the jar with the chemical in
it to understand that this is a
carcinogen or not and if that label is
not on it then the worker doesn’t know
that it’s a carcinogen and obviously
will not pay as much attention as if
there is a label on it that says it is a
carcinogen so most risk management work
that we do in the Union and have built
all our instruments on is based on
communication to the worker that they
know what it is that they are are
dealing with and not classifying but
setting occupational exposure limit
value is a little bit like having a
curvy
road where it you have a lot of danger
signs for it being curvy and you decide
that you want to reduce accidents by
setting a 30-kilometer speed limit but
you also remove the signs and that seems
a little bit in not intuitive and that
same unintuitive approach I would see in
terms of protecting the workers that the
worker even though they have an oil they
first really know what it is they’re
dealing with when they see the labels on
the job so that’s sort of my initial
reflections also having only seen it
this morning and understanding that
you’re debating this after afterwards
[Music]
for the closing remarks I will ask one
of the two representatives are the
parliaments on the Achaemenid main board
for comments
professor Krystal Bernards Thank You mr.
chair I took note of the very
interesting points raised in this
meeting however I shall not go into
answering this or replying to these
specific questions it was my first year
as a member of the management board and
I would like to share three points with
you which keep my mind first of all I
noticed that akka tries to most promptly
act on priorities and tasks put forward
by the EP and a commission and tries to
optimize an alliance this works with his
strategic plan accosted by optimally
allocating resources personnel and
expertise and optimize procedures and
processes to increase throughput and
efficiency in his tasks the examples
were given this process always verified
with management board and approved if if
they agree two points which I always see
as some challenges returning at the
management boards meetings the first of
all
is that about the budgets we see that
the akka is living with a variable
budget incomes are very variable eka
keeps with as informed about good
predictions about the fee incomes and
thus far has met all the tasks put
forward but it could be become
challenging if more tasks will be
assigned to acre
without additional resources and then
the second challenge is a guy is a very
digital digitalized agency it’s
dedicating many resources to databases
and information exchange does for eka
has met all prescribed deadlines and I
will keep an eye on that that it will
keep on doing that despite the
challenges thank you thank you so we are
now ending this annual dialogue as you
said but of course as we expect a new
zero pollution strategy coming from the
Commission in the context of the Green
Deal your expertise will be more than
welcomed in the coming weeks months and
an yrs so see you soon in front of the
Energy Committee as a yourself or your
team and thank you for what you are
doing
so we move to the other agenda item
number six starting with the objection